TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no concealment on the part of Assessing Officer in claiming such deduction. Thus, the penalty qua such addition is deleted. This appeal of assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No. 550 And 551/Srt/2019 And ITA No. 552/Srt/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar (Sr.DR) ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) all dated 12/09/2019 for the Assessment years (AY) 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively. In ITA No. 550/Srt/2019 and 551/Srt/2019, the assessee has challenged the correctness of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2012-13 respectively. However, in ITA No. 552/Srt/2019, the assessee has challenged the addition on the quantum assessment for A.Y. 2014-15. All the appeals relate to same assessee, therefore all the appeals were clubbed, heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 1,62,407/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such additions/disallowances. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), penalty was upheld. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty on both the additions by taking a view that it is an obligatory and duty of every person to file return of income and to disclose all his income derived from any source under various heads of income under each head which is chargeable to income tax after making permissible deduction. The assessee had deliberately and intentionally not disclosed the true and correct income and could not furnish any explanation regarding that why the interest income was not disclosed and upheld the penalty. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice of more than five occasions, therefore, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) of the Revenue. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunity to explain the facts by issuing show cause notice. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant craved liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 9. We find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition of Rs. 5,14,154/- on account of interest income earned from nationalised bank. The assessing officer disallowed such interest income by taking view that such interest was not earned from coo-operative bank. And initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded on such addition. The assessing officer levied / worked out penalty of Rs. 495,854/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the penalty was upheld. Considering the fact that in appeal for AY 2008- 09, we have deleted the penalty on disallowance made under Section 80P(2) of the Act, therefore, the penalty qua the addition with regard to interest income from nationalised bank is deleted. So far as penalty on the addition of interest income of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.S.Y. scheme is not transferred to Dhiran division or any other division but reflected in the balance sheet of S.S.Y. scheme. Profit of S.S.Y. scheme is not distributed to its member. Under the Income Tax Act, only income, profit or gain is to be taxed. In their case, there is principle of mutuality, in the sense that identity of contributors to the funds and recipients from the fund is same. Scheme was made for mutual benefits of members. There is no element of income as per the definition of income under Income Tax Act. The explanation of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking a view that interest on such S.S.Y. fund is a revenue receipt and should have been brought to tax. Further, TDS of Rs. 57661/- was deducted from such interest. The assessing officer further held that similar addition of interest income on deposits of SSY funds, was confirmed by the Tribunal in assessees own case for A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessing Officer accordingly added the interest income earned on deposit of S.S.Y. fund with State Bank of India. 15. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,46,133/- under the head income from other sources and addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
